Nathan Rouse, Methodist, 1862

 Rev. Nathan Rouse was a Methodist minister, ordained in 1834. He served in Cambridge from 1836 and in Brigg, near Hull, in 1838 (Dictionary of Methodism). He was described as “a literary man, and an excellent preacher, cultured and lovable.” (George Lester, Grimsby Methodism and the Wesleys in Lincolnshire, Archive.org) 

A letter to Rev. George Steward

In 1854 the Wesleyan Methodist Penny Magazine (April, p.51, here) noticed Rouses’ publication A letter to the Rev. George Steward containing an examination of some of the statements and arguments of his recently published work. The author assumed most of its readers did not know who Rouse was and the review was sardonic and unenthusiastic, citing Swift’s maxim “Blessed is the man that expecteth nothing, for he shall never be disappointed.”(p52), and ending “... we feel that the insolence, bigotry, and folly of a Rouse leave all former absurdity floundering far behind.” (ibid. p54 col.2)

Contesting Archbishop Ussher’s date of Creation

It was well known, and taken as fact, that the world was created on Sunday October 23rd, 4004 BC, at 9 o’clock in the morning (though the time was not given by Ussher). 

Rouse begged to differ. In 1856 he published 

“A Dissertation on Sacred Chronology. Containing Scripture Evidence to show, that the Creation of Man took place 5,833 years before Christ. To which is added, an Arrangement of the Dynasties of Manetho, on a principle which renders Egyptian and Bible Chronology perfectly harmonious.” [Here]

This was not a trivial matter and It did not go down well. Ussher’s work dated every recorded event in the Bible and provided the temporal spine of scriptural study. 

Rouse was projecting himself as a modern-minded minister, tackling the critical issues and intellectual challenges of the moment and accommodating advances of scientific thinking within the expression of faith. In Grimsby (where he was then serving as a minister) he delivered 

“a most interesting and instructive lecture on geology, before a highly respectable audience, … the room was crowded to excess. The lecturer frequently received the applause of the meeting for the able and masterly manner in which he treated his subject.” (Hull Daily News - Saturday 07 June 1856 p7 col 2.)

1861: publication and trial

So it was not surprising that Rouse would tackle the next big thing where science and religion met. In November 1859 Charles Darwin published Origin of Species. In 1861 Rouse published Man contemplated in his primeval, fallen, and millennial condition (London: Hamilton, Adams) [Here.]. This was not met with applause. 

His methodology was almost bound to lead him astray. 

“The teaching of these [scriptural] oracles, however, does not always lie on the surface; it is in some instances too profound for the superficial and unfurnished mind to fathom; …” (p.iv)

Furthermore, past and contemporary commentaries, in his opinion, were “characterized by superficiality, and not infrequently by error and /(p.v.) absurdity.” On the other hand “The intelligent and reflecting of all classes” have come to understand “that discord between supernatural revelation and created nature, can have no basis …”(p. viii). This combination of arrogance, disdain and idiosyncrasy was not calculated to win friends and allies.

Rouse was not a fan of Darwin: “The absurdity of such theories [as evolution], it is presumed, is now too obvious to require any refutation, but we may nevertheless express our astonishment, that any person possessed of common understanding, should ever for a moment have seriously entertained them.”

Rouse in his turn was, inevitably, attacked. The Methodist papers The Watchman and the Wesleyan Times took him  to task. He was said to be “regarded by many as being unsound on the doctrine of original sin.” A committee was duly appointed to consider the matter. (Sheffield Daily Telegraph - Wednesday 31 July 1861 p.3 col.4) The committee comprised “the two Theological Professors, Dr Osborne, Dr Rule, C. Prest, and two others” (Montrose, Arbroath and Brechin review; and Forfar and Kincardineshire advertiser. - Friday 02 August 1861, p2, col5.) 

The committee examined a book written by the Rev. Nathan Rouse, “Man viewed in his primeval, fallen, and millennial condition.” [Here] Rouse was as accommodating as he could. After “a long and anxious interview with the author, he [Rouse] had engaged to withdraw the book from circulation, to refrain from advocating his peculiar views, and to take a year to seriously re-examine the subject.” (ibid.)  

1862: Inheritable purity  

The matter that finally forced Rouse from the Church was his notion that children of holy parents would inherit the parents’ holiness: his ‘Theory of Hereditary Sanctification.’  [Text here]

At the end of July that year the Wesleyan Conference, meeting at Newcastle, received a report prepared by a committee of five of whom two, Drs. Osborne and Rule, were Professors of Theology. They judged that Rouse’s book taught the doctrine of “the natural transmission of moral purity,” and they informed Conference

“that, after a long and anxious interview with the author, he had engaged to withdraw the book from circulation, to refrain from advocating his peculiar views, and to take a year to seriously re-examine the subject.” (Montrose, Arbroath and Brechin review; and Forfar and Kincardineshire advertiser. - Friday 02 August 1861 p2 col5)

One minister, Rev John Wesley Thomas, added his own unsolicited opinion with Letters to the Rev Nathan Rouse on his Theory of Hereditary Sanctification (March 1862 - I have not found a copy online). 

   

Conference, 1862 

The 1862 Methodist Conference met in Camborne, Cornwall. Rouse’s submission was read and scrutinised by “A large committee, consisting of many of the most learned ministers of the body”. The committee then engaged Mr Rouse in person and he “declined to renounce his misconceptions”. (West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser - Friday 15 August 1862 p6 col 4). 

The committee declared Rouse’s

“written statements in explanation and defence to be unsatisfactory, and inconsistent with Wesleyan doctrine, which, of course, we believe to be in accordance with the teaching of Holy Scripture.” (Sheffield Independent - Monday 11 August 1862 p3 col5)

The Conference called on Rouse to account for his “strange doctrine”, and to take a year to “re-consider”, during which he was to abstain from advocating his notions in public and in private. He was to make a written statement to the next Conference and, If he did not recant, he would be excommunicated.

There was a certain triumphalism. No doubt (though, in the absence of a detailed scouring of the archives, I cannot cite chapter and verse) there had been a deal of communication by letter and in person between Rouse’s judges prior to the Conference. I speculate that views would have ranged from immediate defenestration to give the man a fair hearing first. 

None of it mattered. Before any further discussion Rouse stood, tendered his resignation, and asked to retire from the ministry. (The Dictionary of Methodism in Britain and Ireland notes that he described himself as a Wesleyan Minister in the census of 1881.)